RIAA To Sue Hundreds Of File Swappers

Shackleford writes "The Washington Post has an article saying that the RIAA is preparing hundreds of lawsuits against Internet users who illegally trade copyrighted music files. The lawsuits will target people who share 'substantial' amounts of copyrighted music, but anyone who shares illegal files is at risk, RIAA President Cary Sherman said in a conference call today. The first round of lawsuits will be prepared during the next eight to 10 weeks. They will ask for injunctions and monetary damages against file swappers. It seems that after a federal judge ruled in April that file-sharing services have legal uses and thus should not be shut down, the RIAA has found that it must go after individual users rather than the services that they use." palmech13 points to a similar article on Yahoo News.

Re:That is just stupid of them

Shareware DOES work.
Or maybe you mean unlimited-use shareware. Sure, that's less likely to bring in sales than normal shrink-wrapped software.

But publishers that release limited evaluation/shareware versions of programs and games are allowing everyone to kick the tires before plunking down $50 for a program.
I've bought probably 20-30 shareware programs over the last 4 years. And many of those I wouldn't've purchased if I hadn't been able to evaluate them first.

Same goes for music, except there's no good limited-use version of music.
However, I've purchased more CDs now that I can preview music than I ever did before.
Amazon has the right idea with their track previews, but I want to hear it in decent quality before I commit to it.

If I could somehow preview good-quality music legally from the content producer, then I'd have no use for downloading illegal rips from p2p sources.

'Course, I'm also the guy that bought Photoshop when I graduated from college instead of using the warez version I'd been using up until then... so maybe I'm not the norm.

Re:That is just stupid of them

I think what he means is that if shareware "worked", no one would pirate the full version of the software (after all, you got your wish -- try before you buy). However, history has shown us that just about EVERY shareware program has been pirated (excuse me, "shared") heavily. Take Doom, for instance. It was an undeniably great game (so there goes the "most music/movies/software are crap, that's why I download" argument), you got to play 1/3 of it for free (so there goes the "I can't try before I buy" argument), and the price was reasonable ($30? I can't remember). Despite all of this, Doom was pirated. Extensively. You can still find illegitimate copies of this ten year old game floating around. Doom was not an exception in shareware, it was the norm. Despite "try before you buy", reasonable pricing, and great entertainment value, numerous shareware games (and utilities) were/are pirated. From that angle, shareware did/does not work. This also backs up claims that downloaders do it not for "righteous" reasons but rather that they can get something for free that they'd otherwise have to pay for.

Re:That is just stupid of them

Piracy is a cost of doing business when dealing with mostly intangible goods. The fact is that piracy directly correlates with popularity. If nobody wants it, nobody would pirate it. Chances are that the DOOM phenomenon would not have caught on without shareware, which is basically the equivalent of singles on the radio. As a matter of fact, DOOM is a big reason that shareware games got so big in the mid-90's. DOOM and DOOM II are two of the best selling computer games of ALL TIME. Of COURSE they are going to be heavily pirated just like Eminem and Linkin(sp?) Park are heavily pirated. This comes with the advantage of being able to produce a product that has a physical marginal cost of practically $0 once it has been designed.

Re:That is just stupid of them

Have we ever slashdotted the Washington Post or Yahoo?

Help, we're not making money during this recession. We better start suing our customers. I can't wait for the recession to become a depression. Then maybe the RIAA can pay politicians to change the laws to put people into jail.

Re:That is just stupid of them

> This would kill p2p networks; I say this because they are going after only the people that shares. But not after the people that download. Well if no one shares then there will be nothing to download.

Uh, there would be nothing _ILLEGAL_ to download. There is plenty of material that would still be legal to transfer over P2P networks.

If you want to change the situation, you'll have to convince industry that it's in the wrong. Until then, it's still illegal. "Fair Use" hardly extends to letting hundreds of thousands (millions?) of people on the Internet that you don't know download copyrighted material from your machine.

Re:That is just stupid of them

This would kill p2p networks; I say this because they are going after only the people that shares. But not after the people that download. Well if no one shares then there will be nothing to download.

Stupid of them? No, not stupid.

Duh! Think about it. Isn't that the point? To kill P2P networks? They're not looking for revenue from lawsuits, all they want is to stop the file sharing. Make it so no one shares, the problem is solved.

It isn't a revenue thing, and it never was. This is a power thing. Only the RIAA will determine what music gets to be popular and what does not. Not the listeners. HEIL, ROSEN! *salutes*

Re:That is just stupid of them

This would kill p2p networks; I say this because they are going after only the people that shares. But not after the people that download. Well if no one shares then there will be nothing to download.

One thing to bear in mind is that most in the industry are fairly convinced that P2P filesharing is killing the industry. Rightly or wrongly, they believe that if someone has access to a free MP3 of a piece of music, they will not buy a CD containing the same bit of music, whereas they might had they not had access to a free version.

I recall the infamous Oxford Union debate which included Hillary Rosen who asked, obviously expecting a different answer, how many students had increased their CD spending after using P2P networks. She was, by all accounts, baffled (and probably thinking she was being lied to) when a majority of the students raised their hands.

On a basic moral issue, it really is up to the artists whether their works should be redistributed for free in an environment where that promise of control over their works has been made (and copyright laws constitute that promise.) Most record labels have the ability to provide free downloads themselves should they ever believe that such marketing would help sales. Many artists do provide free downloads of some, most, or all of their catalogs at their own websites.

I think the death of P2P sharing is not, even if its defenders are right about a supposedly positive effect it has on the medium, necessarily going to kill the labels or harm the artists. There are alternatives, but they put the question of what to distribute, how, why, and for how much, in the hands of the artists and publishers, not the "fans".

(Now watch me get modded down faster than it takes to download "Video killed the radio star" from Gnutella)

Stupid of them?

How precisely is this stupid of them? Seems to me that it's the first thing they've done that was vaguely intelligent. Instead of trying to shut down P2P, which is perfectly legitimate, they are now trying to prosecute people that are actually violating their copyrights. Sounds pretty intelligent to me.

I'm not a fan of the RIAA and it's nice to see them finally getting their head on straight about this. It's going to be tedious and expensive, but it's the only legitimate legal means for them to deal with this. In reality they are better served by the existence of P2P because people still end up buying albums and concert tickets, but regardless, the law is the law. Maybe after these lawsuits go through and their sales are still flagging they'll figure out that it wasn't P2P that was hurting them, it was the quality of their product.

Re:Stupid of them?

Instead of trying to shut down P2P, which is perfectly legitimate, they are now trying to prosecute people that are actually violating their copyrights. Sounds pretty intelligent to me.

Yep, we've been complaining about them shutting down Napster and P2P networks--and rightly so. But if someone is making copyrighted material available and *if* that's not covered by fair use, then the RIAA is currently targetting the right party: the person guilty of the action.

Of course, one has to question the logic of "We're going to sue them so that they'll buy our CDs." Threatening people to become your customers is a shady business practice and one that I doubt will work.

I still think they're stupid trying to salvage a failed business model with lawsuits, but at lesat now they're going after the right people.

Re: Stupid of them?

"How precisely is this stupid of them?"

It's stupid in a sense that they're indiscriminently suing their prospectful customers.

I agree that trying to shut down P2P networks is completely ridiculous, and legally questionable tactics. I also agree that suing individuals who are sharing copyrighted mp3s on P2P networks is legally ok. Those people ARE engaging in illegal activity.

However, if RIAA continues on this track, they will eventually totally alienate the very people who spend money on music. Not only that, but the outrageous monetary penalties RIAA is insisting people pay are just grossly unfair. People react badly to unfair treatment of their peers...it's just horrible PR.

Instead of prosecuting they should look into ways of profiting from mp3 sharing. But I guess that's what you get when you have lawyers running the show.

Some of he independent labels and artists seem to have found a goldmine in P2P services. I'm not saying the major labels can do things the same way, but they're not even trying. All they do is have the RIAA parrot the same claims of mp3 sharing hurting sales (and ignoring all studies stating to the contrary). Apple did something, and they had phenomenal success (granted, the longevity of iTunes is yet to be determined). Why aren't the major labels even trying?

They can't possibly think they can intimidate tens of millions of people and get away with it. Or can they? If they do, that's actually pretty scary.

Additionally, RIAA's strategy doesn't at all consider the fact that there are different types of music "pirates": people who pirate to avoid buying, people who pirate to preview music they want to buy, people who pirate but have no plans of buying the music in the first place.

RIAA is losing money only from the first group of "pirates". They actually get MORE money from the 2nd group of people. Yet they claim all music sharing is costing them money. It's typical lobbying tactics, lieing through your teeth and hoping nobody will notice.

Proletariat of the world, unite to kill the RIAA
www.boycott-riaa.com

Re:That is just stupid of them

They're going to win the battle and lose the war.

Legally, of course, there's no defense for copying music and passing out copies to all and sundry unless explicitly authorized to do so by the copyright holder. RIAA will win this battle, easily.

But look at how recorded music purchases have been driven, historically, and it becomes obvious how the industry is really fighting against itself, and the more effective they are in this battle, the more they lose the war.

Used to be, if you didn't want to buy the whole filler album from One Hit Wonder just to get the one song that was good, you could buy a single. The 45-rpm single was a cheap impulse-buy item, a way you could try out a new band without shelling out for the whole album. Yeah, 45's had lame sound quality, but were small and cheap and available and effective enough. Sound like MP3 anyone?

Oh, and back when vinyl ruled the earth, radio stations weren't as heavily formatted and locked in to tiny top-40 playlists. You had a decent chance of turning on the radio and hearing something you hadn't heard before (heh! Try that now...). Rather than fight the homogenization of radio that cuts off the revenue stream of most of the RIAA's back-catalog and even current material, they instead encouraged it thinking they'd lock down the market that way.

So the industry has by design or inattention locked most of its audience out of ever hearing about most of its product in the media, and abandoned the cheap single-song take-a-chance impulse-buy market. It's little wonder that their sales are down, even leaving the recession out of it.

In the void, P2P has flourished, performing much the same function as 'illegal' British pirate radio did in the '60s (spurring a second British Invasion in the USA selling hudreds of millons of LPs, BTW). Like the BBC did back then, the RIAA's fighting an enemy of its own creation, and rather than listen to the market and meet its demand for more exposure to more different music (and at less than $20/gamble, thanks), it's suing the market instead.

Their solution seems to be to sue anyone who essentially passes a copy of a song to a friend - illegal, probably, but also the last possible way for people to be exposed to new music in the current media market. It's asnine, cutting-off-nose-to-spite-face kind of stuff, and it prevents records from being sold. Idiocy.

This just in...

SCO sues the RIAA for stealing their business model

Re:This just proves that it's NOT about money.

Hrm. So if I download a couple dozen songs a day, I'm not going to get sued as long as I move them to a directory that isn't part of the shared list? Interesting...

Exactly right, and if everyone comes to that conclusion then it's bye-bye P2P network because you'll have 10 million leechers and not a single sharer. It's a good strategy they've got.

Re:This just proves that it's NOT about money.

Not quite. The best analogy I can think of off the top of my head is drugs. You don't target the users, you target the dealers. Once the supply is removed then the users are out as well. It's far easier to go after the one person who supplies 10 or 20.

If this succeeds to any degree perhaps people will actually start thinking about the consequences of their actions instead of thinking that while it is illegal, the chance of being caught is so small they might as well do whatever they feel like anyway.

War on drugs

Not quite. The best analogy I can think of off the top of my head is drugs. You don't target the users, you target the dealers. Once the supply is removed then the users are out as well. It's far easier to go after the one person who supplies 10 or 20.

And that war on drugs is going real well, isn't it? NEWSFLASH: As long as there is demand there will always be supply!

The cost (difficulty) of obtaining the good might rise, but you will always be able to get it (name one street drug that used to be available, and is no longer), FTP or messenger service trading comes to mind, if P2P is killed...

Re:War on drugs

The problem is this, though... people will pay for drugs. Once the supply starts to thin out, distributors will either have to 1. start selling the songs to recoup their financial liabilities in case they get busted (not likely, and this would be more expensive than buying the albums themselves) Or go underground, at which point it gets relegated to the "warez" type scenes, and out of the mainstream. Dedicated swappers might make the transition, but by and large Joe Q. Kazaa will get cut out of the loop.

Re:War on drugs

name one street drug that used to be available, and is no longer

Mescaline

Re:War on drugs

LOL, how much do you want. Seriously, it's still around in mid/south Florida.

Jaysyn

Re:This just proves that it's NOT about money.

However, for drugs, I can perfectly understand it is illegal to sell them. Basically you make someone addicted to your product, and than increase the price.

Shouldn't they outlaw Microsoft then?

Re:This just proves that it's NOT about money.

As well they should (IMO). Cigarette smoking is a huge public health problem, and the costs of that problem are borne by society via the government.

If you want to reduce the level of an economic activity (selling cigarettes or drugs), the effective things you can do are reduce demand (through education and increased prices due to taxation), and introduce artificial inefficiencies (taxation again). Cigarrette smoking is way down, without throwing anyone in jail.
Trying to reduce supply just makes the remaining suppliers more profitable. Making the activity illegal removes your ability to regulate and tax it, and means all the profits go to those willing to break the law (and presumably more willing to break other laws, such as the one about drive by shootings as a competitive strategy).

Re:This just proves that it's NOT about money.

The P2P "dealers" aren't getting paid. They're just doing it for the hell of it, so it's not necessarily likely others will step in to fill their shoes. So the analogy with drug dealers is flawed. Which is good.

The rest of this is OT, but I can't help myself:

"You don't target the users, you target the dealers"

That's the conventional wisdom certainly. It's also incredibly stupid. Level of drug use is unaffected; the demand is still there, but supply is down, so dealing becomes more profitable. Dealing is taken over by those with less to lose and/or greater desperation. Haven't had a lot of violent gang wars over alchohol selling turf since the end of prohibition have we? Nor did prohibition put any dent in alchoholism (expansion of treatment programs has).

Well, you touched a nerve justifying anything by analogy with US drug enforcement; you'd want to look to the drug war only if you want a model of how to spend millions of dollars every year, and imprison huge numbers of people, all while making the problem worse.

Re:This just proves that it's NOT about money.

Ah, yes. That's a good analogy. To continue it, I expect the RIAA's war against P2P networks to be just as successful as the government's war against drugs.

Ah, by that you must mean that the RIAA will imprison millions of otherwise nonviolent offenders, at great expense, turning them into violent criminals through the wonder which is our prison system's "rehabilitiation" program.

Re:This just proves that it's NOT about money.

Ironically, a good analogy. This is why the war on drugs is such a failure. And why the war on p2p will also be a failure. See, you're attacking the wrong side of the problem. I'll continue your analogy though.. The reason the war on drugs is such a catastrophic failure is because all arresting drug dealers does is make the profits higher. Because there's more risk of being arrested, dealers will charge more, smugglers charge more, and it basically turns the drug trade into the high-stakes game it is today. Thus, the war on drugs actually INCREASES crime, because these guys aren't afraid of knocking off the competition.

P2P will happen pretty much the same way, but for different reasons. All they're going to do is drive the trade underground again. 5 years ago it was one guy who was technologically adept charging his buddies $2 a pop to burn CDs. Now he can do it again, charging say, $5 a pop. They'll start forming private IRC release groups, buying, ripping and sharing MP3s between private groups of people. The RIAA will have a hard time infiltrating these groups. And the RIAA still doesn't see a rise in profits.

What the RIAA needs to do is basically what business logic of the past 2000 years has told us: offer a better product, lower the price, or and *gasp* actually give consumers what they want (like legal, online music downloads.) If you keep selling us the same crap over and over again, guess what? We're not gonna buy it again. Stop clinging to an outdated business model and get with the 21st century. If you refuse to change your ways, you are doomed.

Re:Open network != Distribution

More true than you probably realize. Most P2P applications don't make it terribly obvious how to disable sharing (as opposed to how to download files). The result is that it would be entirely plausable that major Sharers are providing files unintentionaly.

Granted, the file they are stored in is "My Shared Files" or whatnot... but does shared there mean files I'm sharing or files that were shared with me? There are ambiguities here that definately prevent criminal charges (to say nothing of the fact that Copyright infringement is, in most (all?) cases a civil violation anyhow).

Point being that some of these people will have clever lawyers. Many of them will get off or have charges dropped. The final point is this.

There is no legal way to kill these networks

You can discourage people from using them through scare tatics (which is what the RIAA is trying to do), but nothing they can do within the United States is going to have much of an effect. As long as I can stick a server in Zimbabwe and serve files off of it there's jack shit the RIAA can do about it. They don't want to run the risk of sueing the actual downloaders because that exposes a lot of their policy to judicial scruteny. How well would the idea that you own the rights only to files ripped from your copy of the CD hold up in court (as opposed to my right to download rips of the content I own)? They don't know, and won't risk it.

Once again the RIAA proves itself little more than a collection of jack booted thugs engaging in terror tactics to frighten its market into compliance with its desires. Unfortuately, much like the undertow of a sinking ship, the death throws of a dieing regime can be dangerous to hapless bystanders.

Re:Open network != Distribution

What a staggering piece of wishful thinking. How the hell did this get modded up so high?

Granted, the file they are stored in is "My Shared Files" or whatnot... but does shared there mean files I'm sharing or files that were shared with me? There are ambiguities here that definately prevent criminal charges (to say nothing of the fact that Copyright infringement is, in most (all?) cases a civil violation anyhow).

Ignorance is not usually a defence in law. Incompetence may reduce the level of the offence, but normally won't get you off the hook either. To claim that misunderstanding what "My Shared Folders" means and that you didn't know that others could rip stuff from your machien that you'd ripped yourself does not change the fact that you are breaking the law, and if you were ripping in the first place, I'm kinda lacking in sympathy.

If you think copyright infringement is a purely civil offence, you need to do more homework. Various recent laws, notably the DMCA in the US, seek to change that. Given the wholesale abuse of the system that goes on and the impracticality of waiting while the civil legal process does its thing, I'm inclined to side with the big media companies on this one, too. I don't like them, I detest their business practices, and I think they're stupid not to take advantage of the on-line world, but abusive Internet users have brought this fate upon themselves, and have no-one else to blame.

Point being that some of these people will have clever lawyers. Many of them will get off or have charges dropped.

Very few people the RIAA go after will have clever lawyers, particularly in the US. That's why they use intimidation and threats of legal action to encourage settlements, as has often been reported here. It's a scummy practice that ought to be illegal (and probably is, if you have the effective power to challenge it). However, it makes a mockery of your implication that they are likely to come up against great lawyers defending their targets.

As long as I can stick a server in Zimbabwe and serve files off of it there's jack shit the RIAA can do about it.

You can stick your server in Zimbabwe and hope, but if too many people start doing that you can bet that draconian restrictions on getting data over the 'net from that country will follow. In the meantime, do be careful never to set foot on US soil, won't you?

Oh, and as for having no legal way to take down these networks and being unwilling to sue the downloaders, um, did you notice what this discussion is all about?

Once again the RIAA proves itself little more than a collection of jack booted thugs engaging in terror tactics to frighten its market into compliance with its desires. Unfortuately, much like the undertow of a sinking ship, the death throws of a dieing regime can be dangerous to hapless bystanders.

Once again Slashdot proves the world is full of wishful kids who want everything to be free but haven't thought it through. Unfortunately for them, the real world does not work that way. Unfortunately for the rest of us, in their zeal for advocation they ignore the current legal system and motivate big business to bring this sort of crap down on everyone else as well.

Re:This just proves that it's NOT about money.

They're only suing SHARERS, not downloaders.

That's probably because only sharers are breaking the law. Downloaders are not. Copyright law is about distribution rights.

Re:This just proves that it's NOT about money.

Wrong. Downloading a copyrighted file without permission of the copyright owner is illegal. This is one of those myths; I often hear variations on this theme, like, "Well, if you delete it after a week, it's legal," or "If you aren't doing it for profit, it's legal," and so forth. This is just factually incorrect. Whatever your moral or political opinion on this, it is unequivocally illegal, at least in the US, to share copyrighted material without the owner's permission, regardless of whether you are the downloader or the downloadee.

Many of us justifiably dislike the RIAA. But you will notice that the more principled in this dispute, such as Prof. Lessig or the EFF, don't defend piracy, either. The distribution or business models may be screwed up, but when you download music, you are not making a political statement; you are doing it for greed.

Do I download music illegally? No. Do I use p2p? Yes, but I always try to keep it within reason--a show that is no longer available on TV, a song on a CD I just ordered from Amazon, etc. Minor piracy may be a lot like speeding, and I'm not going to get all self-righteous towards those who do pirate. But I found that I wasn't downloading software or music, when I used to do so, because of some flaw in the distribution plans. It was because I was cheap and greedy. Knowing that is not a good feeling.

Re:This just proves that it's NOT about money.

It never was about money. They're only suing SHARERS, not downloaders. They're deliberately trying to kill P2P. If it was about money, they would sue the DOWNLOADERS. More revenue stream from that, wouldn't you say? It's about power and who determines what music gets to be popular.

Not really. As I understand it, copyright law says that you cannot distribute, not that you cannot receive. They are going after those who they are clearly allowed to go after. Before anyone decides to correct me and say that distributers are not profitting and so are not clear targets; the RIAA has already won/settled that lawsuit. They can now go after/sue those people with impunity. I'm not saying that they will win, just that they are not prohibited from sueing.

Downloaders are in a grey zone.

Re:This just proves that it's NOT about money.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me they could only successfully go after people who were sharing files they weren't legally authorized to share. Legitimate users of P2P services should have nothing to worry about. Since claims of legitimate use of these services get repeated quite often, I assume there's either a lot of legitimate use going on, or that "legitimate use" is just a loophole people have been clinging to in order to keep the services afloat.

I'm not defending the RIAA and overpriced music, but I do think that refusing to buy is a more appropriate response to the problem than violating copyright law. It seems to me that the former would force a reduction in prices, whereas the latter would ensure widespread adoption of DRM, harsher laws, etc.

Consequences

Amigo, don't confuse people with the facts. This is Slashdot. Refusing to buy is the only legitimate course of action. The labels are not enslaving artists even if their contracts are crap. Children are not starving. People are not dying. If we rely solely on market forces and strive to be on the ethical high ground, the industry will have no excuse. Right now, they have a very good excuse for their actions--people are stealing music. We might not like their price but that doesn't warrant being as criminal as they are. It requires restraint and maturity. There are other things to do besides buy mass produced music.

Re:This just proves that it's NOT about money.

It never was about money. They're only suing SHARERS, not downloaders. They're deliberately trying to kill P2P. If it was about money, they would sue the DOWNLOADERS.

Um, yes, it is about money. It just so happens that someone sharing files contributes to infringement much more than someone who is merely downloading them - hence, a bigger payout for the RIAA. Also, it's much easier to locate people sharing files as opposed to those who occasionally connect, download, and disconnect. After all, they never said that they wouldn't prosecute downloaders, only that they're going after the biggest offenders first.

They're not going to kill P2P. What will happen is that the free ride will be over, and the control over the 'net will return to the geeks who created it - instead of a lot of "pop noize", we'll actually be able to find interesting bands on P2P - you know, the unsigned bands that haven't sold out to the RIAA and their minions.

Re:This just proves that it's NOT about money.

Actually it's not really easy, at present, to legally find out who's downloading what. There is so-called packet sniffing, e.g. spying on users' access to the net, then you can see who's downloaded from someone else; or you can make a bunch of fake files and look to see who downloads it, which misses a lot of users.

Or, you can search for something and look at the list of search results: people who have the file (are offering it). You can do this legally.

Once you get a person's IP address, you can contact their ISP, and try to force them to disclose user's names. This only happens rarely, e.g. Verizon, and it is THOSE users being sued by this - not anyone who's using p2p now.

Of course there is a way around all this: using a proxy. Search google for MultiProxy (but the legality of using open proxies is questionable).

Then, they can't go after you too easilly. One alternative is the anonymizer - search google for it - it's a proxy you pay for that claims not to keep logs.

If a proxy is used, the RIAA gets the IP of the proxy serving files - and they can't force the proxy to disclose the user's names with a given IP at a given time, because they (I think) don't keep track of that!

Of course proxies introduce another issue. Proxies know who you are (they know your real IP), _and_ they can spy on you legally, to tell what you do. What if the RIAA bought the anonymizer?

Good thing

I only use file swapping services for new release movies, software and pr0n. I have nothing to fear from the RIAA.

Sharing porn

I only use file swapping services for new release movies, software and pr0n. I have nothing to fear from the RIAA.

Funny that, isn't it? Even though the RIAA and MPAA are claming that p2p sharing is killing their business, you never hear the adult industry complaining about p2p. Perhaps they have modified their business model so that p2p sharing has only limited negative effect (or maybe even a positive effect). Boy, that would be something, wouldn't it? If all the fancy RIAA and MPAA business managers couldn't figure out something that Ron Jeremy did! Man, talk about humiliation!

GMD

Re:Sharing porn

Nah, it's just that the adult industry is used to taking it in the ass.

Re:Sharing porn

Tons of P2P porno clips have banners advertising (presumably) the site they originated from. That's because the biggest goal of porno advertising is just awareness and mindshare. The RIAA assumes that you know full well who Eminem is, now they want your money in exchange for his music. From VHS to streaming video, the "adult" industry has always been at the forefront of technology.

-B

Re:Sharing porn

"Maybe she should have a heart to heart with Britney"

I'd like to see that!

Re:Sharing porn

...you never hear the adult industry complaining about p2p. Perhaps they have modified their business model so that p2p sharing has only limited negative effect (or maybe even a positive effect).

Porn Companies Embrace Peer-to-Peer [216.239.53.100]

Re:Sharing porn

Porn companies Embrace Peer-to-Peer [216.239.53.100]

Porn companies lean in close to Peer-to-Peer [216.239.53.100]
Porn companies pull closer to Peer-to-Peer [216.239.53.100]
Porn companies begin slowly caressing Peer-to-Peer's neck [216.239.53.100]
Porn companies whispers softly into Peer-to-Peer's ears [216.239.53.100]
Porn companies' hands glide effortlessly down Peer-to-Peer tight, young, body [216.239.53.100]
Porn companies gently brushes fingertips across Peer-to-Peer's naked chest [216.239.53.100]

..... Click here [127.0.0.1] for our members news section.

Sure They Do

Even though the RIAA and MPAA are claming that p2p sharing is killing their business, you never hear the adult industry complaining about p2p.

It's true that the adult industry can't haul out a soap-box and scream bloody murder the way the RIAA and MPAA can; the adult industry has enough trouble with the wrong sort of reputation already. If the adult industry publicized how easy it was for Little Johnny to download pirated copies of hardcore pornography, it could backfire and trigger a new round of anti-porn legislation, rather than a wave of protect-the-porn-biz sentiment.

In any case, I have read at least one interview with a top adult-industry photographer (Suze Randall, I believe) who has been battling on-line piracy of her material for years, and who claims that the situation is increasingly out-of-control. Adult magazine sales are down - heck, Penthouse very nearly went under about a year ago - in part because all the photos in them are readily available on the internet within a week of publication. SR said that the glory days of her business were over - the fancy sets and high production values of her best stuff were no longer economically viable, because the prices she can charge for her pictures is falling. It's arguable that piracy has had a more dramatic impact on the adult industry than on the record industry.

Of course, it's also true that the internet has made it possible for any yahoo with a camera to start a porn site, and the resulting flood of bad, cheap-or-free porn that results probably has a lot to do with the flagging fortunes of the big names, too.

in other news....

The announcement is part of an attempt to rid the Internet of illegitimate versions of copyrighted works as it tries to find a way to encourage legitimate music download services.

in other news every single mp3 dissapeared today from the internet. Hillary Rosen was heard to scream "Smells....like.....victory...."

Re:Cry me a river

It is illegal to obtain copyrighted material from sources that are not authorized to distribute it - especially knowingly, but knowledge of the illegal act is not neccassary. The buck stops there. Whether or not increased music "sharing" benefits the music industry, or if a lack of good music is to blame for falling profits, or the economy is the cause, etc, is completely irrelevant. Stop stealing.

Price fixing is also illegal.

So are cartels.

Welcome to the real world where people break the law, and only the poor or unlucky deal with the consequences.

What morals here?

When the laws of a society are at odds with the moral views of the vast majority of people, that society has a large problem on its hands which is usually worse than the original problem that the law is attempting to solve (think Prohibition).

What morals are those? That theft is perfectly acceptable? I don't like the RIAA any more than anyone else, mainly because they're a bunch of dinosaurs and because they go after people who do little more than establish search engines. This ain't one of those times however.

But calling theft moral simply because they're assholes? I don't think so. Getting even, maybe, and I can understand that. But don't have any illusions of moral high ground.

And this civil disobedience thing is tripe - if you want the moral high ground, go handcuff yourself to Hilary Rosen's car. Or download some Weird Al songs that you have no intention of actually listening to, if you want to screw them with P2P. And be sure to advertise your identity, as civil disobedience has no point without an audience.

However, mp3 d/l'ers don't do that. They mainly want something for nothing. Now, I know we all need a method of trying out songs, so I got nothing against people who buy the albums they like and delete the ones they don't. But calling this movement civil disobedience is a travesty to those, like Ghandi and MLK, who used it in the name of great causes.

Re:What morals here?

> What morals are those? That theft is perfectly acceptable?

Well, this isnt a standard 'its not theft, its copyright' post, so please hear me out.

Its not theft to most people.
And here is why.

Ever sit around and come up with jokes to tell your friends?
Or have a friend that did that in your group of friends?

Ever retell that joke, or hear it told again?

Thats illegal. For the same reason not getting permission to retell a story is illegal. and the same reason sharing songs is illegal.

Humanity came about sharing information by passing it down from generation to generation. Some have even argued this is what seperates us from the monkeys and what not.

The point is, people dont think repeating a joke is illegal any more than telling a story they heard, nor any more than simply sharing a song they hear.

Copyright is trying to come at this from the other side of what thousands of years have taught us.

Right wrong moral or immoral, its that its not technically possible to put limits on information, and before 50 years ago, no body ever did or had it expected. Now it is expected, and people dont want to change.

Right or wrong wont come into this post. Its that people are USED to sharing storys jokes songs and experences with eachother. Its how we define our relationships, with what experences we share with others. Music is no different than a story or a joke or a tale of what you did over sumer vacation.

That is just how most people feel.

So to come back to answering your post.. Its not so much claiming theft is moral that is happening. Its people dont think of it as theft in the first place.

Re:Cry me a river

Well, it's actually not a horrible argument, though. If substantial amounts of people are driven to do something irrespective of laws passed regarding that thing, then is it a good law in the first place?

Keep in mind that there are two generally accepted sources of law, those generated by behavior that is inherently criminal, and those generated for other societal reasons (check here [state.pa.us] for the definitions of mala in se and mala prohibita) and that we're talking about the second kind when we are talking about copyright law. Clearly, a large chunk (I don't know if it's a majority or not) of society doesn't agree with the law on the books. So, by that reasoning, maybe it should not be a law, Congress just hasn't caught up with society yet.

But I think the reasoning of the person you were replying to is not so much that, but that many of the violators are violators only because they lack the resources to buy legislators. Given a level playing field in monetary terms, the RIAA would lose out in a heartbeat, which does offer a whiff of moral justification to the traders.

Re:Cry me a river

Price fixing is also illegal. So are cartels.

Well, then support INDEPENDENT MUSIC. Musicians don't have to sign with a record label that is a member of RIAA. I agree that the RIAA is a cartel, but we've got to expect the musicians to shed the golden shackles and do what's right too.

Breaking copyright laws (see, I didn't call it stealing) isn't the solution, because the RIAA will have the ability to enforce copyright law. But if you spend your money elsewhere, they can't do anything about it.

Re:Cry me a river

How the fuck am I supposed to support indie music WHEN I CAN'T BUY THIER CDS because no store can carry them? When radio cannot play them for fear of RIAA retailation? Break the cartel and these guys won't be indie music, they'll be mainstream.

Ummm...try an independent music store. Screw the big record store chains while you're at it. Or buy directly from the record label. Most smaller indie labels sell direct for less than you'd pay in a store, and some don't even charge shipping. There are also online stores (Cheap CDs [cheap-cds.com] comes to mind) that have a very good selection of indie music.

And radio? How many non-independent radio stations aren't owned by a huge media conglomerate anyway? Stick to college radio....

Re:Cry me a river

Two wrongs make a right, now. Didn't you get the memo?

Re:Cry me a river

As if that somehow makes stealing copyrighted music OK? Stop redirecting the argument.

Is stealing from the mafia ok? It's a legitimate moral question.

Maybe it would be easier for you if the world was black-and-white, but that's not the case.

Re:Cry me a river

Newsflash: The only people calling it stealing are the RIAA, US copyright law _does_NOT_ refer to copyright infringement as stealing. Stop trying to make it something it's not.

Re:Cry me a river

So because "copyright violation" is subtly different from "stealing," its OK?

I don't recall anyone saying that just because copyright violations are not the same stealing, that it is "OK".

I believe the poster was just saying "call a spade a spade, rather than the RIAA's bastardization of the definition of a spade".

Manslaughter, by the letter of the law, IS a form a murder (often its called murder in the 3rd degree). Both are felony crimes.

However, by the letter of the law, copyright violation is not a form of theft. Theft is a crime. Copyright violation is a civil tort. That's not a subtle difference.

Please note, however, that I didn't say that copyright violations are "OK".

Re:Cry me a river

You'll buy them eventually? Yeah, right, how many people actually do this? Sure, a handful of people do, but I'd argue that the vast majority don't, they just take and take and use the excuses above to justify their taking.

Actually this is probably the crux of why copyright infringement via P2P has gotten so big. The primary market of the RIAA consists of teenagers and young adults. Yet this market (especially teenagers and college students) tends not to have a lot of disposable income. Thus the only way for them to acquire all the music they want in the short term is to get it through other channels like P2P.

One other thing to note is that copyright infringement of music is not a new phenomenon by any means. Ten or twenty years ago, you could infringe copyrights by copying and trading music on tape. CD burners, MP3's, and P2P are the same concept made better, cheaper, and faster. The fundament reason large-scale copyright infringement exists is because there is a significant difference in the amount of money people are willing to pay for music and the amount of money the RIAA currently charges for it, and large-scale copyright infringement will not go away until the supply and demand curves meet.

Re:Pace yourself

No, you haven't stolen a thing. You have made an illegal copy. A copyright infringement.

Theft:
1 a : the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it b : an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property

You have deprived noone of their property. You have illegally copied it.

I honestly don't understand why people have such a hard time grasping this simple, factual idea.

Re:Pace yourself

What's even funnier is the guy misidentifying something as theft when it is clearly and undeniably affixed in the law as coyright infringment is the only one who got modded up.

Be completely wrong - get karma. I love Slashdot. :-D

Re:Cry me a river

As much as I hate to admit it, I think the RIAA is doing the right thing. Going after the people violating copyright instead of trying to pass laws the restrict reverse engineering and cracking copy protection is what they should have done in the FIRST PLACE!

In fact, this is the way it's always been; if someone found someone else violating their copyright, they'd sue them. All this DMCA crap has only served to annoy legitimate users. I'm glad to finally see them suing the real offenders instead of squashing fair use.

Way to go RIAA. Your products still suck and you still use strongarm tactics but you're finally starting to do the right thing.

And furthermore...

1. Stop playing our songs with your little so-called "band members". Just because you call it a "cover" and say it's a "tribute" doesn't mean you're not in criminal violation. (By the way, send us a demo and maybe we'll sign you up for indentured servitude...er, I mean, lucrative arrangements. Heh heh.)
2. Stop playing your CDs for your friends to hear. That constitutes a public performance and makes you a criminal.
3. If we hear you humming one of our songs while walking down the street, it's curtains for you, buddy.
4. If we catch you remembering a song of ours inside your head (an illegal copy for sure), we'll slap a lawsuit on you so fast your head will spin (which should induce Leslie-like effects in the tune, which will be considered a derivative work...now we're talkin' big bucks).

Re:Cry me a river

It is illegal to obtain copyrighted material from sources that are not authorized to distribute it - especially knowingly, but knowledge of the illegal act is not neccassary.

Like hell it is.

Distributing copyrighted content is illegal, you are guilty of copyright infringement in this case (note, not theft). If you *knowingly* obtain copyrighted content from an unauthorized source, you may be guilty of contributory copyright infringement.

But as far as I know obtaining copyrighted material without knowing that the source is illegal is perfectly OK. If you think otherwise, quote some law.

Re:Cry me a river

But as far as I know obtaining copyrighted material without knowing that the source is illegal is perfectly OK. If you think otherwise, quote some law.

U.S. Code, Title 17, Chapter 11, Sec 1101, (a)(1), Distilled:

Anyone who, without the consent of the performer or performers involved fixes the sounds or sounds and images of a live musical performance in a copy or phonorecord, or reproduces copies or phonorecords of such a performance from an unauthorized fixation shall be subject to the remedies provided in sections 502 through 505, to the same extent as an infringer of copyright.

Because downloading entails making a copy to your local machine, I expect this is the basis of the argument that downloaders may be treated as infringers.

Disclaimers: IANAL, RIAA Sucks, Linux Rocks, etc...

Huh???

"The Washington Post has an article saying that it is preparing hundreds of lawsuits against Internet users who illegally trade copyrighted music files."

So the Washington Post is suing music file traders??? Since when did they join the RIAA?

We keep losing customers!

I don't understand! We sue the fuckers, and they still won't buy our products!

-- Jack Valenti

Re:We keep losing customers!

Next, they'll start suing people because they don't buy their crappy products.

"Your honour, in spite of the fact that we've added 33% larger breasts to the cover art for Britney Spears' latest album, the named defendants still refuse to buy her albums. We're suing for monetary damages."

Re:We keep losing customers!

I think the MPAA and RIAA are starting to move to a new bussiness model at last.

They will create material, promote it, advertise for it, never bother actually distributing it (aside for a few insider 'leaks') then sue the crap out of anyone who possess it.

Is this it?

I've heard talk that once the RIAA starts suing the general public, that's when there will be a huge public complaint against them. So, what do my fellow Slashdotter's think, will this be another nail in the coffin of the music industry as we know it. Or will they succeed in scaring(sp?) people out of trading files?

Re:Is this it?

MPAA is definitely in a better position than RIAA. Watching a Divx on your computer isn't exactly the same as going to the theaters. I probably spend about $400 a year going to the movies and donâ(TM)t plan to stop any time soon.

seems legitimate to me

These companies do have copyrights on the songs in question and their copyrights are being violated. Going after the people who violate their copyrights seems legitimate to me. This is the way things should work.

What I have always objected to with the RIAA actions is that they have been trying to restrict what I can do even though I'm not trading in copyrighted content. It is the chilling effect on legitimate uses that have made past legal actions and laws like the DMCA so harmful.

Re:seems legitimate to me

Who's doing the copying? He who shares, or he who downloads?

Say I rip my CD collection (I have). Every mp3 I have is legit as a backup (this is going under the assumption that fair use still exists -- the argument about THAT can go on later). I go on KaZAa and sit there, looking for those GPL'ed parod songs I've heard so much about. My legitimately created files are open for the taking. An RIAA drone comes along and copies one to his computer.

Who has done wrong? Who should be sued?

Re:seems legitimate to me

I'm puzzled why you're even asking this. Why are you sharing your legitimately created -- but still illegitimate to share -- MP3s?

Re:seems legitimate to me

Show me the standing law against file sharing.

That would be US Code, Title 17 [cornell.edu]. It's kinda like federal law, oh wait, it is federal law. (At least in the US, most other countries have similar statutes.) The copyright holders have the exclusive right to distribute their works. In other words, you can't share their stuff.

You're likely guilty of contributory infringement

By making it so easy to copy the files, you would certainly be in danger of contributory infringement. That means, even though it's others that are doing the copying, you're still liable because you knowingly put them online. Contributory infringement is what got Napster.

This May Be A Good Thing (tm)

If they go after enough people, those people will probably organize and be able to put together a decent defense, unlike the lone college students they've been harrassing to date.

At the very least, if this happens, the RIAA could be stuck with a significant legal bill...

Why the negative slant?

What's wrong with this, supposedly, why does the article make it sound like "Oh no, more evil antics from the RIAA"!

They are doing the _right_ thing. Go after people breaking the law, not the entire service.

Newsbreak! You don't have the right to download free music!

The way it should be

I have no sympathy for those who are sued (assuming reasonable penalties). They break the law, they get caught, they get punished. I don't see anything wrong with that.

Why is this "stuff that matters"?

Can you say boycott?

If we all boycott RIAA members products (yes downloads too), we can hurt them.

There is room for a meeting of the minds. RIAA members basically charge $15.00 for something that costs them $.25 ($.01 for the plastic and $.24 to the artist). No industry that has to mark up raw materials 60 times to cover marketing and distribution can expect to survive.

At the very least a boycott of just a couple of months would defund the RIAA.

Re:Can you say boycott?

Your understanding of the costs is incorrect. A finished CD with jewel case and printed artwork is closer to $0.50 than to $0.01. You may be confusing the pricing on CD-Rs and pressed CDs. CD-Rs are much cheaper. You've also misestimated the royalties. Compulsories can be $0.70 for one CD alone.

Record companies sell CDs into the channel for less than $10.00 each. The margin structure for the CD industry is similar to many, many other industries.

You have plenty of legitimate reasons to crucify the recording industry. This isn't one of the good ones.

Just a random question

Can all of us file a lawsuit claming that the RIAA continues to overcharge for the sale of CD's even after courts found them guilty, rapes its musicians of duly earned money, and for blatent infringement on our rights as a consumer pertaining to free personal use of music purchased? You know only cause its like calling the kettle black to say they are so high and mighty and we are all evil law breakers

Re:Just a random question

If you want to bring legal charges against the RIAA, consider charging them with being an illegal monopoly. The RIAA is, by every meaning of the words, an illegal monopoly, and the items you listed help to back up that assertion. I think it's a winnable case, but after seeing the pathetic slap on wrist Microsoft got for being found guilty of the same charge, I don't have much faith in our legal system to fix the problem.

It's time for a militia

I was holding back, but it's time to start a militia and hit 'em where it hurts: the stomach, elbow, etc.

I can assemble a force of 1,000 drunk North Dakotans with hunting rifles in about a week!

Potential to end Reign of Terror

This could potentially be a good thing:

Out of the hundreds of users targeted by these lawsuits, all it would take is one to stand his/her ground and fight. Once one rises to the challenge, a following will form. Once the following is formed, more and more attention will be levied on the case. The more attention the case recieves, the more people will become aware of the monopolistic and grossly unconstitutional actions of the RIAA. Once more people become aware, Congress will have to start paying attention to the people again.

Keep in mind, up to this point all the people (or students) the RIAA has sued have settled. What would happen if at least one stands up and goes to court?

The constitutionality of the DMCA and associated laws would undoubtedly be the first things reviewed, and again, given enough attention, could be soundly defeated.

Heres to crossing my fingers.

Re:Potential to end Reign of Terror

Tell me again, if you will, what the base of the defense will be for the illegal file trader who "stands up" to the RIAA? That they made SURE that all the people who downloaded music from them owned copies of the music?

If you take the criminals out of file trading, then the rest of us who do it for legitimate reasons can quit worrying about having our doors kicked in by the Feds.

zigging when they should zag

Well, these clowns have been fighting the wrong battles here for ages. This one is no surprise.

The strength of P2P has nothing to do with the small % of users who share huge amounts of material. It's the combination of thousands of individuals each sharing a small amount of material. Seeing tactics like this is even counterproductive because it sends the message that sharing a few files is okay; the real crime is sharing lots of files.

Even with its size, the RIAA isn't big enough to sue the litte guys who are the engine of P2P. This human-redundancy is why P2P is around to stay.

This 'ownership of ideas' is an important issue

How people understand cultural and legal issues is often in terms of analogies; the RIAA is trying to create and focus attention on the analogy between copying music and theft; copy music and youâ(TM)re a common thief.

What are some better analogies? Music as basic human right when available, music as buckets full of water from a communal village stream?

How weâ(TM)ll think of the ownership of ideas is being determined right now. Iâ(TM)d say weâ(TM)ve an obligation not only to ourselves but also to others in our culture and future generations to think critically about what weâ(TM)re making music, the access to music, and the ownership of music, analogous to.

Isn't the problem the other way?

I thought it wasn't the sharing that was illegal, but the downloading of material you don't have rights to. This looks like it's just going to fall under safe harbor...

Nephilium

FUD

This is FUD pure and simple. They simply don't have the resources in lawyers and the like to take this to a widespread level. A tactic used by civil rights workers back in the 60's was to have so many people present, and so many people arrested that they overwhelmed the system, forcing the let-go of the rest. If enough people get involved in enough jurisdictions, than at least one of them will get an intelligent judge. With that intelligent judge a precedent about fair use with regards to music can be set, letting the rest go.

Enough cases and favorable precedent will be set somewhere. Some of these precedents will make their way up to district courts, and could eventually make their way all the way to the Supreme Court, a risk the **AA's just can't take. We've seen this before from the **AA's where they were afraid of a precedent going against them and dropped the case. They know about this, and don't dare make this as widespread as many people seem to believe they would.

Re:FUD

They simply don't have the resources in lawyers and the like to take this to a widespread level.

You have no idea what you are talking about. I saw Directv do this to a bunch of people in federal court over access cards.

What they do is hire an el-cheapo lawyer with some federal court skills and they file a complaint against 50 or so people. Then they use the logs that they have generated to convince a judge that the case should be decided at summary judgment.

Half the plaintiffs ignore the pleadings and get hit with default judgments and the other half talk to a lawyer and find out that, yeah, they broke the law and there is no reasonable defense. Then they negotiate a deal on the order of several to ten thousand dollars (which is what Directv was doing in my area).

The lawyer gets a percentage of what he collects for the big company, and the consumers get slammed for stealing.

I'm sorry that the /. mindset is generally opposed to the idea that sharing copyrighted music files is breaking the law, but I think that you will find that the courts will disagree.

That being said, I think copyright needs some revision, but I think you seriously underestimate the exposure that real people have here and how it can fuck up their lives. I have actually seen it happen to others and I know several attorneys (who are good attorneys) who could do nothing to stop it in the Directv cases. I expect that the RIAA stuff will be almost verbatim in how it works.

GF.

OK with me... but they need to be careful.

Isn't this pretty much what everyone wants? If someone stabs someone else to death with a knife, you don't go after the knife maker (P2P software) you go after the murderer (copyright violator).

(it's just an analogy, so save your breath... I'm not at all suggesting that copyright violators are equated with murderers and you know it)

My big concern is that I want to make sure the RIAA/MPAA/etc. are VERY careful about who the sue. They need to make VERY SURE that those they are suing are actually making the copyrighted works available for download or or downloading them. No blanket lawsuits that snag people who haven't done anything wrong (we all know the Professor with the with mp3 of his speach or the kid with the Harry Potter book report). And they also need to be very careful about snagging people who are sharing songs that the bands don't mind being shared. There are many bands out there that don't care at all if their live performances are shared amongst fans.

But I really have no problem with people being sued for sharing commercialy available copyrighted works. That's the law, it's how it should be, and it means that there's NO NEED for new laws to cover this.

-S

Re:OK with me... but they need to be careful.

... but then there are gray areas.

I own CDs of several artists... somewhere. I know they're under a pile of crap.

But when I want to listen to that one song from a Dave Matthews Band CD that I own, it's faster for me to fire up Kazaa, pull the MP3 down the T1, and play it, vs. rooting through all my crap to find the CD.

That's legal, fair use. (Isn't it?) However, the RIAA would only see "Dave Matthews Band - Crush.mp3" flying to my computer, and slap me with a lawsuit. That's a hassle I can't afford (in time or money) to deal with.

Now, yes, there are people who just download songs they haven't purchased a copy of. But, my point is that the RIAA can't just assert that because the music is theirs vs. being an MP3 of an indie band, it's illegal for me to download it.

Re:OK with me... but they need to be careful.

Fair Use provisions of copyright law don't necessarily say that you have to be allowed to pursue the easiest possible way to exercise your fair use rights. You're right, technically you're not violating the law.

Like I said, I'm OK with this as long as they tread carefully. When I go online looking for live concerts (mostly of bands who are OK with it), I'm stunned at the amount of copyrighted works out there. Many many people with hundreds upon hundreds of commercially available copyrighted albums just sitting there for the taking. Just now I fired up Soulseek and it took me all of 30 seconds to find about 50 people sharing the latest Metallica and Linkin Park albums. The very first person who's catalog I scanned had about 60 or so full CDs shared... and as far as I could tell, they're all commercially available. If they go after those folks, I have no problem with it.

-S

Re:OK with me... but they need to be careful.

Isn't this pretty much what everyone wants? If someone stabs someone else to death with a knife, you don't go after the knife maker (P2P software) you go after the murderer (copyright violator).

So what are you saying? That all copyright violators are equated with muderers?!!??!? You liberal pinko commie feminazis and/or fat religious right rich boys are all the same!

(it's just an analogy, so save your breath... I'm not at all suggesting that copyright violators are equated with murderers and you know it)

Oh, so now you're flip-flopping?!?!? You're no better than that greedy Clinton and/or Bush, changing your position so that you can line your pockets with money from the unions and/or oil cartels!

LOOK AT MY .SIG

I called this *MONTHS* ago. I suggest that if this pisses you off, do a few things.

1. Stop stealing stuff.
   
2. Never give money to the copyright industry again.
   
3. Vote for people who don't support this kind of extortion.
   

Check out this post! [slashdot.org]

Re:LOOK AT MY .SIG

Let's go over this again. Repeat after me:
"Copyright infringement is NOT stealing"
"Copyright infringement is NOT stealing"
Make sure you say NOT really loud. Copyright infringment is only that, copyright infringement.

In fact, if you will search the complete version of the U.S. Copyright Law, you will see, throughout all the chapters, amendments AND appendicies, the words steal nor stealing DO NOT APPEAR A SINGLE TIME.

Yes, downloading copyrighted materials is illegal, but it is NOT STEALING. There is an entirely different law that applies to stealing. If you would like to go over the US Copyright Law, all 290 pages of it are available in PDF and HTML form here [copyright.gov]

4. Stop being taken in by the RIAA FUD-O-MATIC

Lots of angry parents in 3...2...1...

Presumably, internet accounts are maintained in the name(s) of the adults in the house. Thus, irregardless of who is swapping songs over the broadband connect, there will be lots of unsuspecting Moms & Dads getting hit with these lawsuits out of nowhere.

Are we about to see the first "reverse class-action" lawsuit, where all the *defendants* band together to protect themselves against 1 plaintant? I call dibs on the patent :)

We're never happy

Let's see, in the beginning, our collective position was that it's not the fault of ISPs and programs that their users use them in illegal ways and targetting the ISPs and software vendors was not right. Common carrier arguments and all.

So now RIAA are targeting people who are sharing the stuff out, now we're all going to say how evil that is too.

Isn't it great to be fickle! :)

But seriously, what happens if a user doesn't know their stuff is being shared? What if the next windows worm searches out for someone's legal mp3 collection and then connects to a p2p network and shares it out, all unknown to the user? A stretch? Hardly, certainly possible.

Didn't someone just get a case thrown out for having child porn on their computer because they maintained that their computer was hacked and the stuff planted there?

I assume RIAA is doing this in civil courts and hence won't need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, but I am still curious how they intend to make a case that each user actually knew they were sharing files.

(I also assume they don't expect anyone to fight it and to just roll over and settle...)

Still, if this kills illegal trading, I think it's a good thing. Call me old fashioned, but I still believe people should pay for this stuff and if it's a load of rubbish -- which most of it is -- don't buy it. At least then maybe they will stop blaming the net for declining sales and maybe, just maybe, produce some better and more diverse talent at a fair price. But I am still concerned about innocents being caught in the collateral damage and hence don't trust RIAA to execute this fairly.

This is good

I for one have no problem with this, other than my wanting to side with the little guy and not "The Man." It's illegal, as far as I know, to distribute content that you don't have the right to distribute. Better the RIAA go after actual lawbreakers than they go after services which are used for legitimate purposes as well.

Oh, and for those of you who got freaked out after reading that the RIAA's cracking down, there's always EMusic [emusic.com] and the Apple Store. I did notice that it is frequently cheaper to just buy the CD at Cheap CDs.com [cheap-cds.com] than it is to pay $9.99 for the AAC-encoded album. Check there first! Just a public service announcement so you don't get screwed like I did. :)

Interesting notes from IP seminar

At the Oregon State Bar CLE Seminar on Intellectual Property, they mentioned a provision of the DMCA that states, as I understand it, that someone can only be sued under the statute if their financial gain from the activity can be shown to be over 1000$ during a period of 180 days. This would imply that people who swap a couple of songs a week would be safe from prosecution. In fact, 1000/180 = 5.55$ a day, which would be five songs (and an NSYNC song) at the Apple rates of 1 song = 1 dollar.

Another interesting fact was that there is a three year statute of limitations for infringement for civil suites, so all those college collections of music you made should be free and clear.

IANAL, but I'd like to be one day, mostly so I don't wind up in jail. Again.

It is their right, but...

As I've said before, I think the best solution for the RIAA will be to clean up their image and get people on their side. If people saw artists and their organization as people who need to make a living instead of money hungry whores, they may get a bit more sympathy from the market. These lawsuits are probably costing them more than they are making from them, and the bad PR is just driving their customers away instead of bringing them back. I think what the lawsuits will instead cause is that the next big P2P network will be encrypted and anonymous like Freenet is striving for.

Good thing I don't live in the US

I think I'll share a few more albums to help out the poor Americans, I don't think the RIAA is going to launch any international lawsuits.

Re:what if...

what if you shared the files, but no one ever downloaded anything from you.

You mean people that share nsync stuff? They deserve to be sued anyway

I have nothing to worry about...

...since all I share is FLACs and therefore nobody ever downloads from me. Yay for alternative formats!

A really good user experience

I liked this unintentionally honest quote from the article:

On free P2P services, "You go for Britney Spears, you get porn. You go for Pokemon, you get porn," [Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) President Cary] Sherman said. "When people are presented with a really good user experience at a reasonable price, they're going to use that."

I agree. A really good user experience is one that replaces Britney Spears with anything.

In related news...

On free P2P services, "You go for Britney Spears, you get porn. You go for Pokemon, you get porn," [Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) President Cary] Sherman said. "When people are presented with a really good user experience at a reasonable price, they're going to use that."

In related news, Adult Film Industry Association (AFIA) President Seymour Butts threatened a lawsuit against RIAA President Cary Sherman for suggesting that people utilize free P2P services to illegally download copywritten pr0n. "Hey, just 'cause your customers are unhappy with you doesn't mean you should attack our service. And speaking of service, you should see what I did to your mom last night."

;)

Just what they should be doing

This is precisely and exactly what they should be doing. Their attempts to ban useful technologies just because they can be used for copyright infringement can and should fail. Their attempts to mandate technologies of control ("My Computer" indeed!) can and should fail.

If you are caught violating copyright law hundreds of times with a flagrant disregard for that law, you can and should pay for the crime.

The laws we have are adequate. We don't need new IP law (unless it be to roll back terms -- retroactive extension should never have been allowed).

I have tons of MP3 and Ogg files, all cut from CDs I purchased. I've never downloaded a song. Really and truly.

What the "content industry" needs to wake up and realize is that the digital technology has changed the marketplace. People no longer want to pay $20 for a CD that costs $0.35 to make (marginal cost). Peoplw want to download music. They want to use it, convert its format, burn it to disc themselves, store it in SD cards, whatever. The music industry should be doing market research and offering "Napster-like" subscription services ($5/Gig/month, for example). People want to be legal.

Meanwhile, I'm all for suing the actual people violating the law. My gripe has been attacking ISPs, P2P server operators, etc. who are not actually engaged in violation of the law. By the RIAA's logic, there should be no such thing as a copier or a fax machine. They can be used to infringe copyright, therefore they should not be allowed. Mind you, they tried to say that about copiers, and abaout VCRs, and about cassette recorders, and...

Re:Just what they should be doing

This is precisely and exactly what they should be doing. Their attempts to ban useful technologies just because they can be used for copyright infringement can and should fail. Their attempts to mandate technologies of control ("My Computer" indeed!) can and should fail.

Exactly. If the RIAA is paying attention, they'll note that they are getting positive responses to this from the mouths of people who previously would have been anti-RIAA. A large contingent of the anti-RIAA crowd are so only because of the RIAA's attempts to put a stranglehold on technology. Drop the technology-control agenda and only go after the actual GGTM violators, and they'll likely find that opposition to their efforts drops substantially.

Good.

Maybe watching people get nailed left and right for illicit filesharing will encourage people to share files that they have a legitimate right to. This would encourage the diversity of media on the net overall, which is way better than people swapping around rips over overpriced and overproduced CDs by RIAA artists.

Finally

The MPAA and RIAA have been harassing programmers from the start, and wondering aloud why it was having little to no effect on illegal file swapping.

If jack valenti were the drug czar of the US, he would put botanists and horticulturalists in jail and wonder why illegal drugs still proliferated.

I don't buy it, though. The MPAA and RIAA cabal isn't stupid. I believe they've been refraining from visibly targeting 'dealers and users' so as to keep illegal piracy high, to serve as an argument in lobbying efforts for further legislation, which they (mistakenly) believe is the real answer.

However, now that the cabal is facing much greater opposition to legislative 'remedies', they are being forced into the role they should have taken all along ... pursuing pirates. The action against the college students recently (although still against programmers and not pirates) was the first step. They were chosen because the high damanages allowed guaranteed a settlement ... note that usually secret settlement amounts became very public.

This will hopefully turn into a better, friendlier entertainment cabal. Still users of scare tactics, but no longer backward opponents of technology.

Too little, Too Late...

What do they expect hundreds of lawsuits will do? Stop file sharing? Last time I checked 40% of internet users use file sharing in some form, and there are millions of people sharing illegal, copyrighted files.

This is bigger than they are, and they need to realize that. Maybe when the whole thing started with FTP (even before Napster), they could have put a significant dent in file swapping, but now it's too late. There is already a kind of critical mass that will surpass even the largest file swappers -- IF they are brought down. The system will quickly replace them, and worse yet (for the RIAA), more may even be encouraged by the significant news media this is sure to attract.

Anyone besides me notice a correlation between file sharing, P2P networks, and the metallica lawsuits? It took off. I personally know people who would never had touched a computer that are now online primarily because of the free music and file sharing.

Attempting to bring down the large few isn't going to do anything but perhaps scare a very few small fish off (primarily the consumers). The people who have multi hard disk RAIDS are most probably technically inclined and won't scare easily or find ways to anonomously distribute their files.

Even so, how can the RIAA blame their users? A lot of the pirated music today is full of lyrics about stealing and "playin'", that is, the same product they are trying to sell and the message they are sending is the same one they're fighting. I'm not saying all or even most music is like that, even for the RIAA's holders, I'm just saying teenage eminem fans aren't going to be scared off -- they'll do it anyway.

In a way, the golden age of profiting crazily from record labeling is at an end. What lies ahead is most probably better music, better distribution, and much better artists. Once again in the history of music -- talent and skill are going to be a deciding factor, not "product creation" by multi-billion dollar grossing labels selling over priced junk.

I can't wait!

4 BILLION SERVED!!!

HAhAHa Come get me you shitards!!

I know how much I charge my clients for forensic/investigative work. I cater to really small companies that have been hacked (usually 10 or less PC's and help them get the evidence they need in a presentable format so they can pursue legal action. I'm sure the RIAA tech's charge a lot more.

My Prices
Initial Consultation/Site survey $100
Onsite time $65@hr (Usually get about 4 hours in)
Evidence prep $40@hr plus $0.05 per printed page
Court Time $90@hr

It ends up costing the client over $1000 if the case makes it to court. Multiply what I do by 1 billion and the RIAA is going to have a lot of legal bills to pay.

RIAA, soon to be owned by lawers.

rebates

"The first round of lawsuits will be prepared during the next eight to 10 weeks."

It looks like they have to wait for all the rebates on CD-RW's they bought for their kids to clear before they can fund the lawyers needed to do this.

Some thoughts...

If *everyone* shares 25 songs, who are they going to sue then?

Plus, if I share 10,000 txt files renamed to 'song-artist.mp3', will I get some papers? Sounds like a good way to countersue.

Or, place a disclaimer on all your shares - "This is for personal use only under the Fair Use Act. Unauthorized use or download is strictly prohibited. Do not download if you are not the owner of these files." - perhaps this could also be a challenge to EULAs...

Last I checked, it's not illegal to have a PC open to the net - if it was, many Windows users would be rubbing sholders with drug offenders in prison.

Is the RIAA downloading these songs to check if they are real, correctly labeled and such? If so, they are breaking the law (IANAL). Do two wrongs make a (copy)right? If not, wouldn't this be considered barratry/harrasment?

Head hurts? cut hand.

By doing this, the RIAA does not find a cure. Just treating the symptoms. This will not stop people from copying if they feel they should. They might find an other way of doing so (IRC, new P2P ..) but they wil not be stopped. RIAA should search in making people WANT to buy originals, not FORCING them to buy.
I think the biggest proof that people are willing to buy songs if they find it interesting is the success of iTunes. The same people who use their Internet connection to Download by paying could just as well use Limewire or whatever for free. But they don't. And i don't think it's because they don't know how to find free MP3' or they want rare music. It's because they (for some reason) find it interesting.
RIAA Should try an approach where they do not threaten the consumers but provide them with value for their money. They could do it by , lets say, providing Albums that have more the one song that is good. Or they could include extra material (maybe a DVD with video and whatever).

There is one thing sure. If i pay 20-25 Euros for a CD where i can get the exactly same satisfaction downloading from Gnutella, i won't buy it.

I'm confused.

IANAL and it probably shows, but how does the RIAA distinguish between legal and illegal sharing? If i bought a CD, don't have the knowledge necessary to "rip" it to listen on my computer, am I allowed to download a digital copy? And if so, how does the RIAA prove that I did or didn't purchase the CD in the first place? Doesn't the burden of proof lie on them?

I'm going to risk losing Karma to say...

This is a legitimate thing for the RIAA to be doing. Going after the file-sharing networks is one thing, and a judge (rightfully) ruled that they can't be shut down because of the actions of individual users. Strict enforcement against guilty individual users is the right way to enforce copyright law.

It is not right and rightfully illegal to acquire copyrighted material without paying for it. The direction that the RIAA is taking now is where they should have gone from the get-go. I cannot, and will not, support people who illegally trade copyrighted files.

Don't get me wrong. I am against DRM, the DMCA, and other such things that erode our fair-use rights, but we, the end users, need to show some responsibility and accountability. The whole reason the RIAA and MPAA (and whatever other *AA exists) want strict DRM controls is because of the rampant illegal transfering of files. And nobody can claim that it's not wide-spread.

Please, people, don't embark in sharing copyrighted files. Whenever you do, you only make the situation worse.

Good music will always generate revenues.

I have purchased only 6 CDs in my entire life. All of them were classical music performed by the very best of this world. Why did I buy it instead of downloading it? Well, I liked having an original that I keep and listen to for many years. Let's face it, Mozart, Chaikovsky and Rahmaninov will remain popular for many years to come and it is worth buying that music. As for the rest of the pop world, give me a fucking break, when was the last time we got something worthwhile from singers like Shakira, Mandy Moore, Brooks & Dunn, etc.?

Brooks & Dunn, multi-Platinum country music artists said, "We want the next Brooks & Dunn to have a chance. Piracy hurts that chance. There are a lot of really talented hardworking people making music. For them it's a job... If music gets stolen, it's hard for them to continue. So help us ensure the future of good music."
The Dixie Chicks, Grammy award winning and two-time Diamond award recipients said, "It may seem innocent enough, but every time you illegally download music a songwriter doesn't get paid. And, every time you swap that music with your friends a new artist doesn't get a chance. Respect the artists you love by not stealing their music. You're in control. Support music, don't steal it."

Ya rednecks, how about many artists that became popular, like Darude & his "Sandstorm", because they shared their music?

Mary J. Blige, multi-Platinum award winning artist: âoeIf you create something and then someone takes it without your permission, that is stealing. It may sound harsh, but it is true.â

My grandmother has a collection of Pushkin's works. I did not pay for any of those books and Pushkin is not alive: I can't ask for his permission. How the fuck am I going to read "Evgenii Onegin"?

John W. Styll, President of the Gospel Music Association (GMA) said, âoeFrom ancient times onward, it has been understood by all people that taking someoneâ(TM)s property without their permission is wrong. The GMA supports the RIAAâ(TM)s efforts to use the court system to enforce the intellectual property rights of the creative community, but also calls upon people of faith to consider that this is not just a legal issue, but also a matter of morality.â

Jesus fucking Christ, there are people who pay to listen to Gospel? Isn't religion about sharing and crap? Didn't Jesus mass produce fish and wine in order to feed the poor? I bet local traders were pissed about him flooding the market.

Frances Preston, President and CEO of BMI: âoeIllegal downloading of music is theft, pure and simple. It robs songwriters, artists and the industry that supports them of their property and their livelihood. Ironically, those who steal music are stealing the future creativity they so passionately crave. We must end this destructive cycle now.â

Creativity? You call people like Eminem, Britney, Justin & Co., and other pop *stars* creative? If so, then every special education kid in this country is a member of MENSA.

Finally I do recommend everybody to read the article published on RIAAs web site. Please do it carefully and note the people who are mentioned there. Most of them are untalented fucks that strive to rip general publi off by producing half-baked hits. If people truly appreciated their work they would buy it, would not they?

Sue...and people will still trade

I don't really see this as a way to stop people from trading. It took a geek to set up the p2p network in the first place. Files traded, it got popular, it went mainstream, it got abused. Now the RIAA will come in and sue individual users. It may deter a few users for a while, but I'm sure another geek will come along and find a way to mask this, circumvent that, etc etc.

And that's just the technological side of things. Then we deal with ethics, business, money, law, and so forth. But I think those are all small insignificant issues (maybe not insignificant, but in terms of stopping the trading or not it is) and it is ultimately the technology that will change and the file swapping will continue, no matter how many people get sued.

Nothing to see here

This is just a publicity stunt and nothing more. They are using the same scare tactics that they always use to try and scare people away from P2P networks. I am pretty sure that they WILL sue a couple of people and make Examples out of them, but I really doubt that they will sue hundreds (must be that RIAA math again) of people who have no money. It is just not financially feasible.

a pondering

/me looks at a rather substantial collection of mp3's and ripped cd's ....

At first thought, I was a bit worried about how much more out of control fiascos like this can get. And you know, the interesting thing is that my second thought wasn't "gee, I should rm -rf that collection and never trade music again", it was "hrm, I wonder how we are going to beat the bastards this time and trade music anonymously".

These underhanded scare tactics don't drive people back; they fuel innovation for the exact things they are trying to stop.

The right response to this...

If you are named in one of these lawsuits, and you didn't do it, call the EFF, now. A few expensive countersuits will keep the RIAA from using this as scare tactics. Extra funding for the EFF from the RIAA would be nice, too.

If you are named in one of these lawsuits, and you did it, but the damages against you are ridiculously high, call the EFF, now. Don't settle out-of-court for your life savings without getting some decent advice first.

If you aren't named in one of these lawsuits, but the idea of an industry group beating up indiscriminantly on thousands of individuals makes you mad, call the EFF, now, and make a donation!

That's the Electronic Freedom Foundation [eff.org], folks...

In other news...

...the Highway Patrol has announced that it will fine hundreds of car drivers that are speeding. These will target the people that are traveling at a 'substantial' amount over the speed limit, but anyone that speeds is at risk. In severe cases, they'll ask for injunctions against car driving by revoking their licence and even possibly jail time.

I mean, that has really killed speeding hasn't it. Oh, wait...

Kjella

The real question...

Saw this quote on News.com...

"It's one of the few strategies left," Radcliffe said.

The question I have then is, what's the RIAA going to do when this doesn't work? What do they have left? And how long before they realize that this strategy, like all their others, is a massive failure?

That's just a little bit of history repeating...

The RIAA's lawsuit tactics are not surprising to me, nor are they particularly new. We've actually seen this whole thing happen at least once already.

Way back in the early days of MP3 swapping, before anyone had ever come up with the idea of peer-to-peer, there used to be a lot of pirate mp3 FTP servers and webpages, there for the taking. I remember using a Windows web spider program called MP3Wolf [hitsquad.com] that scanned the web for mp3 file links and listed them for you to choose from and download. I remember when about a zillion mp3s popped right up in the list, right there for the taking.

But then the RIAA and other powers-that-be started suing folks who ran those websites...and almost overnight, MP3Wolf started turning up zip. The RIAA didn't sue everybody running such a site...but they started suing enough of them that word got around it was distinctly hazardous to one's financial health to run an open mp3 download site...so the mp3s retreated onto IRC channels, leech-ratio FTP sites, and, on the web, behind a maze of warez site lists (of lists of lists of lists of sites, if you were lucky; if not, toss in a few more "lists of" in the middle), pop-up ads, and computer-killing pop-up browser window storms, and it was almost impossible to find a direct link to any mp3 files on the web, because if you could find it, so could the RIAA.

A friend of mine put it that the RIAA and the file swappers had reached a sort of de facto agreement: the swappers made the files nearly impossible to retrieve, and the RIAA pretended not to notice them. A balance was struck, and equilibrium was maintained. Until peer-to-peer came along and knocked the whole thing into a cocked hat.

Well, it's happening again. Granted, it's taking a bit longer than it did back then, as the record companies couldn't directly attack the legality of webpages and FTP sites so they had to cut right to the chase, but I think we're going to see a dramatic decline in the quantity and selection of songs flying around on KaZaa as the chilling effect brought on by the first round of lawsuits hits. Rhetoric of "dammit, we have a right to steal music! And it's not 'stealing' anyway because of (car analogy, furniture analogy)" Slashdotters notwithstanding, most file-sharers out there would rather not be prosecuted, even if they think they aren't doing anything wrong. If you don't know who's going to get slammed with a lawsuit, then you're not going to risk being one of them. And that's what the RIAA is after.

It won't be the end of it, of course; in a couple years or so, folks will come up with the next file-sharing paradigm (perhaps something Freenet-style, where there's almost no way to tell who's sharing what) and do an end-run around these lawsuits. And then the RIAA will try to work out how to counter that. And so it goes. To quote a Shirley Bassey/Propellerheads song that's floating around out there on peer to peer right now, "That's just a little bit of history repeating."

Anonymity is inevitable & will make p2p flouri

I'm posting this after the big "primetime moderation" window, but I think it's worth saying...

The RIAA's most recent action will motivate p2p programmers to introduce anonymity into their trading system, either by creating a new protocol or (more likely) modifying existing protocols and clients.

It's inevitable.

The veil of anonymity will prompt more people to share their entire music library. This will increase the diversity and wide availability of files.

In a p2p app, diversity and wide availability of files means that users a) find what they want and b) can download it quickly.

P2P trading platforms that a) are easy-to-use, b) offer multi-source downloads (for speed) and c) basic anonymity will thrive like never before because many p2p users will open up those massive libraries that are currently unshared out of fear of lawsuit.

The threat of being tracked down will have been removed by the always-responsive p2p programmers, leading to wide-spread sharing by people currently to scared to share, people with something to lose: adults with incredible collections... and a former fear of the RIAA.

Unclean hands

An issue here is whether the RIAA can go into court claiming to be an injured party when they've been found to be operating an illegal price control system.

Not likely

Clean-Hands Doctrine only applies when conduct in question is related to the suit that is being brought. In this case, the RIAA's shenanigans about fixing CD prices are wholly unrelated to the separate claim over lost profits due to file swapping. So while what the RIAA did previously is reprehensible, because it does not stem from the same transaction or occurance, they can still bring the suit.

I WISH the RIAA Would Sue ME

I have to confess that I have not used file trading software because of my occupation, so there is realistically no way the RIAA will ever sue me. However, I have a substantial number of MP3 files on my hard drive that I dutifully ripped from every CD or other source I own.

I would love to have someone accuse me illegally possessing those MP3s. I would produce the original CD from which I ripped the track, show that I OWN that source, assert my fair use rights, and promptly counterclaim for substantial damages of my own. Think about this: If I have paid for the content, and can legally rip an MP3 from whatever source for my own use, why can't I get a copy of an MP3 version of content I already paid for from another source? That sounds like a FAIR use of the content to me. In fact, I think that prohibiting such conversions to force consumers to repurchase the same content in a new format is an UNFAIR and deceptive business practice. In court, suing individual file traders has the potential to quickly become a bottomless pit of evdentiary and other legal issues for each file alleged to have been illegally downloaded.

There are no "natural rights"

I think this whole problems stems from the way copyright law has developed over the last century. Currently, organizations such as the RIAA and the MPAA have a "natural rights" position: We own it, and you'll pay us what we want or else.

Unfortunately, consumers don't think this way. We tend to take a more utilitarian approach. The authors of the U.S. Constitution have a short sentence about this very issue, and that leans towards social compromise: limited exclusive rights for author, use by the general public.

I find it ironic that some take the position of "it's against the law so I won't do it." Problem with this reasoning is the fact that the content industries have been writing the laws for years, pushing them through with donations, and uniting to block any legislation remotely negative.

My last comment is about the punishments faced by those accused. I would hope one of the cases goes all the way to a jury trial and have some high school kid possible "fined" millions of dollars. How "fair and just" would that seem to the average American? Later.

The revolution won't be shared?

This whole issue has been going downstream for a while now. RIAA is so desperate now that I would pity them, were them not an evil organisation that in a sane society would already have been extinct.

Come on, people. I read you saying "They are right, sue the infringers", "Good for them", "I don't care about music pirates". Let me tell you something: you are full of it. The "infringers", the "pirates", the "criminals" are you brother, your son and your neighbour. And they are doing exactly what they should, nailing this industry's coffin byte by byte.

The cartels won't change. Like a dying dinossaur, they will try to survive by every possible way, be it buying laws, buying copyright extensions, using the money they steal from the public and the artists to sue everyone in their way, bribe a few and mindwash the rest.

We can,t expect any help from legislators, they are all already bought. We can't expect any help from the media, the media, the music industry and the movie industry are owned by the same corporations.

We can only expect help from ourselves, they can't sue everyone. Thay can' jail everyone and the Courts will eventually notice that an all-out forced money transfer from the consumers to an industry that refuses to advance is not a possibility.

So please, forget this righteous crap some of you keep regurgitating. Screw what the law RIAA bought says. This is war, RIAA is the enemy and it ends when they and their outdated business model are gone. It is as simple as that.

Simple.

To the RIAA I say: "Produce the evidence."

Furthermore, produce evidence that you can prove is unmodified in any way. Digital signatures aren't legal in a lot of places, why should digital logs be any different?

Furthermore, what are you doing? Querying IP numbers and seeing who's offering what? If that's the case, your argument will hold damned little water -- IANAL, but I don't believe you can sue someone in civil court for intent, and if you downloaded it from the defendent, there was no theft involved, because you already own the music, right? Right.

Move along, please.

On the bright side..

The RIAA press release gives a nice list of artists who haven't a clue and shall never receive any $$ from me.

The Dixie Chicks, Grammy award winning and two-time Diamond award recipients said, "It may seem innocent enough, but every time you illegally download music a songwriter doesn't get paid. And, every time you swap that music with your friends a new artist doesn't get a chance. Respect the artists you love by not stealing their music. You're in control. Support music, don't steal it."

Wow, and every time I take a dump, a songwriter doesn't get paid, what's your point? Are you saying that if I didn't download that song, the artist would get paid? And how does swapping prevent new artists from "getting a chance?" Sharing is great for truly new artists that can't get mainstream CLEA^H^H^H^H radio play. I assume that by "new artist" you meant the latest "me too" group assembled just for the purpose of sounding exactly like the last chart-topping bile.

I was hacked, prove me wrong

Seriously though, about 5 years ago my machine was invaded one day and setup as a FTP serer full of kiddy porn.

Took me all but 4 hours to find out ( actually about 10 mins once I got home ) and shut it down, removed the porn and notified the people upstream they used as a stepping stone.. , but still.. according to this new attitude id get 'the letter'. where is the proof its MY doing?

What about wireless lans.. you may not even know its happening from your neighbor.. even accidentally by over stepping your signal..

As far as downloading, how am I to know its not a legitimate service, I'm paying of access, for all I know ( Joe user speaking here ) from all the advertisements I got in the mail '' download music 10 times faster " its all ok to do.. I thought they were authorized to let me do this..

Until a cease and deist informational letter comes.. there really isn't much grounds for suits and fines..

Ok, enough, what-if's for one day..

wouldn't it be theoretically easier...

to hop on some service like mIRC or pIRCh, and go to #mp3, grab the IPs of the users, and go after them that way? I'm seriously wondering why places like IRC are being ignored - before the Foo Fighters latest CD came out, it was available on IRC but no where else. No p2p (aka KaZaa, WinMX, etc). I'd think it'd be easier to nab the kids directly from IRC, because log files there are in multiple places. Just a thought.

Re:wouldn't it be theoretically easier...

/join #mp3
/sue everyone

It's funny how we got here

Back in the late nineties, money was everywhere, so record companies sunk tons of money into artists (videos, appearances, general promotion). Of course, because money was everywhere, people were willing to take the chance on a $15-18 dollar cd based on one single.

Fast forward a couple of years. Now money is tight. People aren't spending as much on luxury items. Now, the record industry still has to promote the artists as they did a few years ago, but it's more costly. Not so much that the production costs more, but fewer artists are doing well.

Why are they not doing as well? The mp3. But before you mod me down as a troll think about why. It's not that everyone is downloading whole albums and not buying cds. Research shows the opposite. Instead, it's that people aren't buying bad cd's. Because they can hear more than one or two singles in an album, they know if it's a good buy and make a purchase accordingly.

Because of the mp3, record companies can't get buy by putting albums with 1 good track and 13 crappy ones. Before it was, get one good song, hype it, produce a good video, fill the cd with enough trash to be over an hour and watch the money come in. Now you have to put out at least three such tracks to have a prayer.

The industry is still selling records in record numbers. Albums are continually breaking sales records. The problem is, they aren't getting money from the one-hit wonders who's albums aren't being bought due to lack of quality material.
The mp3 is reducing the money of the Record Companies. It gave the consumer an out from a practice that had taken their money for years: the one track album.

This just in part 2

The RIAA reported that CD sales during the year 2004 have dropped a staggering 75%. Industry critics attribute the fall in sales to the RIAA's aggressive litigious tactics of suing thousands of individual song swappers to the point where victims had no disposable income to make legitimate CD purchases, thus the RIAA had created its own depressed market.

why?

The lawyers will make vast amounts of money.

But it will have no effect what so ever on sharing.

OTOH, I can imagine that the media companies have been told to either protect their copyrights or risk having material pass into the public domain.

This could be an indication of the weakness of the RIAA rather than an action taken from strength.

With That Many Lawsuits

They're bound to be checking on filename only (Well... they've only been checking on filename only anyway.) How's about we all set up p2p node honeypots with huge MP3 files from /dev/random and then countersue them for wrongful prosecution and harassment when they file their suits?

we've already won half the battle...

Because they've basically admitted that they can't sue those who write programs that provide file-sharing services, as there are many legit uses of file-sharing.

The other half of the battle is to thwart their effort to steal the life-savings from individuals who work damn hard to make their money. This means waging a publicity war, and doing whatever it takes to hurt the RIAA. That means not buying any of their songs. Likewise with the MPAA. If you must see or hear something, download it.

Never forget that current copyright laws are illegitimate. We, the people, did not vote for them. They were snuck into law behind closed doors, with no public notification taking place. They were illegitimately retroactively extended.

Also remember that file-sharing -- including the sharing of copyrighted files -- is more legitimate than the President. More people voted for Napster than voted for GW Bush and Al Gore combined. Furthermore, the politicians who make these draconian copyright laws are in no position to tell us what is right and wrong. In fact, it is most likely that doing exactly the opposite of what they say is the right thing. These, remember, are the same bastards who accept bribes from every party that wants to pay for certain laws. They are the same bastards who get together every now and then to vote on how much they want to raise their own fucking salary by, as if they deserve a payraise.

Advice to those individuals:

(1) Put as much money as possible in 401(k) or 403(b) plans, IRAs, and RothIRAs, and possibly annuities. These are sheltered from taxes, and are likely more sheltered from lawsuites. Indeed, colleges don't even consider them when determining how much aid you should get.

(2) Transfer money off-shore to countries that don't recognize the US' insane copyright laws.

(3) After discussing the credit implications with a lawyer, and loan implications, consider the possibility of declaring bankruptcy. They don't get shit if you declare bankruptcy.

Why is it that rich greedy execs are able to steal the life-savings away from individuals in a court of law, yet when those same execs (like Gary Wennig) fuck over millions of investors and tank their life-savings by insider trading, nothing can be done against them, and they don't even go to jail?

An interesting P2P tool for blocking RIAA scans..

4) Learn about and use additional tools that may be useful for blocking "enemy" scans of your system.

Something like Peer Guardian [methlabs.org]

From the site:

PeerGuardian is a simple P2P-enemy blocking program. It was initially just made for a few friends on XS.

It has aggression control so users can control the CPU versus their connection (dial-up users can use it with 20% aggression) and works in conjunction with the PG IP Database, an on-line database of P2P-enemy IP addresses which users can submit to, vote on submissions or add comments on existing ranges. Latest version is compatible with the 'Bulk Update' feature of the WWW-based PG2-IP-DB.

PeerGuardian is freeware.

There is an interesting review of Peer Guardian [p2pnet.net] that also highlights some interesting points regarding blocking "enemy" IP scanning.

From the review:

"PeerGuardian blocks out known IP ranges used by MediaForce, MediaDefender, BayTSP, Ranger, OverPeer, RIAA, MPAA & NetPD by default," says Method on the app page."

Also, the PeerGuardian site also has a listing of "enemy" IP's [methlab.tech.nu] that is updated periodically (not sure of the frequency).

Prophylactic defense measures....

OK, file sharing kiddies. Now that the Evil RIAA(TM) has opened up its bad-nasty can of legal whoop-ass, you need to engineer "Plausible Deniability" into your activities. Go out right now and buy a Linksys Wi-Fi Broadband Router (or functional equivalent).

When you install it, install it wide open, no passwords, no encryption. Place all of your other boxen behind some other firewalling device.

When the RIAA hauls you into court with your IP addy as the star piece of incriminating evidence, produce your receipt for the Wi-Fi box and printouts of it's configuration and say "some neighbor must have been using my connection".

Case Dismissed.

Oh, IANAL, but that's a good thing.

Here's an idea

I know I'm late to this party thread, but hear me out:

I setup eDonkey, Kazaa, YFP2P software on a box outside of the country. I secure login to that box to do my illegal swapping. I secure copy the files back to my box here to enjoy.

Now, the RIAA has had it easy because if your box in your dorm room is sharing illegal files, they can just figure out where you are and bust you. But my guess is that none of the magic 100 are from the UK...or China....or Sealand, since American copyright has a harder time going overseas than it does right here at home amongst the masses with 300 GB of purloined data. They can't sniff my scp legally, so transfer to my box would be safe enough. Basically, if everyone shared their files off shores, it'd be like mp3-laundering.

Just a thought.

Research

I'm willing to bet that they will have researched very carefully the list of people they plan to sue. Just because they ask for the info from the ISPs doesn't mean they have to use it. They'll look at those lists and will research to come up with a very targeted list, with specific reasons for suing each person.

They likely make sure and not target anyone with a high profile, especially people like the senator's kids. They'll also stay away from wealthy people who might actually have the ability to fight back in court. (Includes most senators anyway) They'll go for low to middle income people and students who are unable to do anything but choose to settle. That's been their method so far, and it's likely to continue. They'll target some children or teenagers to catch the parents unaware. This will make sure they are good and scared and thus will be more likely to crackdown on their kids.

They want to target the average American user so that other average American users feel that this is hitting a little to close to home for them and will begin to wonder about their own safety from prosecution.

I told them they would have to do this

Three years ago, right after I started boycott-riaa.com [boycott-riaa.com]. The RIAA called and wanted to "talk." I had a 2 hour conversation with the then Internet Evangelist, Karen Allen about this very thing...

That the technology was there and it had non infringing uses as well as infringing uses. The Professional Photographers Assn. doesn't sue Nikon for making a product that could be used to copy copyrighted photos, but instead goes directly after the infringers.

The RIAA has wasted 3 years, in actually getting artists paid for their work, while pumping hot air up congresscrittwers rears to get more and more control over the internet. They aready have approx. 85% of the physical distrbution, and now they are trying to grab the same thing with the internet..

On a side note the RIAA actually took the time to fill out my contact script on boycott-riaa.com [boycott-riaa.com]. They called and wanted to "talk." with the press release apprx 1/2 before they released it, which I have to admit surprised he daylights out of me..being as both Hilary Rosen and Amy Weiss (their PR flak) have my email address.

RIAA and its real relevancy (i.e. none to me)

Ooh! The RIAA are going to sue some a couple of hundred folks. It's the end of file sharing as we know it, as no-one will ever share a file ever again! P2P IS DOOOOOMED!

Earth to the United States of America: you only represent 5% of the planet's population. You think the RIAA's going to stop Russians or Chinese or Indians or Saudi Arabians (or Iraqis - they gotta get their own back somehow) from sharing files? Or all us effete, decadent European types?

Get a grip. There's a reason it's called the internet and not AOL. Funnily enough, the global communications network does not stop at the US border (although I think I'm the first to make that point in this thread). Stuff happens in the rest of the world (almost all the time!)

Whew! Panic over. Resume stealing from the oligopolists. But first: pull your heads out of your arses.

They're making a list

and checking it twice
gonna find out who's naughty and nice
R I A A 's coming to town....

They log you when your sleeping
They log when your awake
They know if you use P to P
so be good for goodness sake...

Oh you better watch out
you better not cry
you better log off
I'm telling you why
R I A A's coming
to town.

Bowling for Cartels, a film by Michael Moore

I keep expecting Michael Moore to make a movie about the recording and radio industries. Perhaps...

Hilary Rosen and Me

or

Bowling for Cartels

I can hear his ironicaly booed Academy speech already... "Shame on you music thieves and samplers! Shame on you consumers! Shame on you America for thinking that the end of radio station diversity, the exposure of price fixing schemes, the innovations of well intentioned computer programers, the closed door campaign contribution lobbist politics, the antiquated concepts of "fair use" and culture minded ideals of a public domain, the post 9/11 isolationism and protectionism, the misinterpreted doctrines of privacy, competition marketplace economics, and a culture more and more dominated by greed of every kind, shame on you for thinking these things gave you the right to listen to mass marketed music! Shame on you!"

The recording industry has never been intersted in musical diversity but with profit. The "golden years" of radio were only golden because no one knew how easy it was to homogenize markets. Take a look at the horrible tactics other industries use to target teenagers.

(Check the Frontline program Merchants of Cool [pbs.org]for a fantastic look behind the increasing generational marketeering - sorry, I'm not sure if I made the link work)

I would suggest that the recording industry / radio conglomerates are by far the best at this.

I know that as I grow older, it seems clear that that I am less and less a part of a targeted demographic for the recording industry. Why should they bother when their catelogs are already full of music that I still like and is still produced on relatively volitile media? Marketing (and not just for the recording industry) is a moveable feast; they go where the disposable income is.

That means the incomes and allowances of those most likely to spend it. While I might have grown cynical and hesitant to spend $20 on a CD that may or may not be crap, my teenagers have not.

What the recording industry is really doing here is a little cultural engineering. They don't want millions of technologically minded teens downloading music for free instead of paying for it. It seems very logical to assume that a majority of any legal cases arising from this new tactic will be levied at the unsuspecting parents of teens who spent their allowance on cool anime mouse pads instead of CD's. The lesson being reinforced here is of course for those middle class mom's and dad's to raise law abiding citizens.

The future of the RIAA and the music industry is not as rocky as many would like or love to believe. They DO know what they are doing. They don't need the $12,000 life savings of college kids who shared a few thousand files. What they do need is quite simple. The recording industry needs the perpetualy new members of a marketing demographic to see and believe that the music which marks their generation was chosen by that generation, not marketers. Teens who have free access to thousands of artists and millions of songs or just a little musical maturity are not buying into the Brittney Spears / Justin Timberlake marketing. The assimilation and homogenization is incomplete.

Thus the timely rise of conglomerates in radio, with the earnest support of the recording industry. The fight against P2P is about limiting choice. Please remember that while the RIAA members represent about 90% of all recorded music in this country, that other 10% is nonetheless very valuable. And menwhile, decreasing the number of alternatives in that 90% increases profit just as well.

What needs to happen is that all those adults who use file sharing to pinch the occassional Flock of Seagulls' or Bryan Adams' song, need to explain to our children and one another how we have all been duped by the recording industry into paying for something we all have the power to CREATE for free.

Most importantly we need to supp

Look at the past to see the future ...

Ppl left Napster and went elsewhere, ppl are about to
leave kazaa and go elsewhere .

DRM won't let you play your CD in ur PC?
You can always buy a MP3 player/recorder with line in ,
and jack it into your boom box etc .

The next flavor of the week for the RIAA will be either
I-mesh, WinMX, etc, etc, etc ad infinitium .

What will be the end result ?????

An encrypted network, and or ppl going 0ld sk0ol
on them and using SSH2 dump sites .

VPN's also come to mind .

PGP mailing lists with atachments come to mind,
like subscribing to a certain "artist"
and when something new comes out the holder
of that mailer-list broadcasts/multi-cast mails it .

I am sure there are MUCH brighter ppl than me already
making plans to make it happen as well .

All encrypted too .

As for the RIAA, necessity is the mother of invention ,
and out of it will spring stealthier ways to trade .

For the unfortunates that get fried, I pity them .

I swear its like trying to prosecute ppl for FAXing pages
out of a book to friends ... Good luck .

I am not saying copying is right, I am just saying they got
one hell of a battle to beat it , I just don't see it .

Peace,
Ex-MislTech

Re:Bring down the RIAA with better music

Actually, thanks to Kazaa and Shoutcast, I've discovered lots of new music by independent bands that I really like. A good example is Army Of Me (http://www.armyofmeonline.com/). You can buy their CDs right from their site.

I really do think the RIAA and the companies that back it are going way too far on this one. This is a dangerous area of corporate control of private citizens. History teaches us that such action can lead to all sorts of problems; from widespread civil disobedience to riots and other forms of violence. I mean, they're talking about nailing people for (say a typical user with 1000 files) up to $150 million. This would instantly force anyone save the most wealthy into bankruptcy. At that point, they don't have much to lose.

Re:They will never win a single case in court.

I can easily write a utility that generates random blank files ranging in sizes from 3-8 megabytes in size and giving them randomly spoofed names corresponding to current hits, then serving these empty files on Kazaa.

Do it. Do it NOW. Make sure you've got a Linux and Windows version. So what if the networks temporarily get crap-flooded with bogus stuff? It'll eventually get weeded out.